The level of support for evolution among scientists, the public and other groups is a topic that frequently arises in the creation-evolution controversy and touches on educational, religious, philosophical, scientific and political issues. The subject is especially contentious in countries where significant levels of non-acceptance of evolution by general society exist although evolution is taught at school and university.

Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[27]pseudoscience,[28][29] or junk science.[30][31] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[32] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[33] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[34]

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[3] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[23]

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[35][36][37][38] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[22] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and criticising creationism and intelligent design.[39][40]

There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about a third (32%) of the public."[41]

Another early effort to express support for evolution by scientists was organized by Nobel Prize Winner German biologist Hermann J. Muller in 1966. Muller circulated a petition entitled "Is Biological Evolution a Principle of Nature that has been well established by Science?" in May 1966:

There are no hypotheses, alternative to the principle of evolution with its "tree of life," that any competent biologist of today takes seriously. Moreover, the principle is so important for an understanding of the world we live in and of ourselves that the public in general, including students taking biology in high school, should be made aware of it, and of the fact that it is firmly established, even as the rotundity of the earth is firmly established.[44]

The Discovery Institute announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design as of February 8, 2007.[51] This prompted the National Center for Science Education to produce a "light-hearted" petition called "Project Steve" in support of evolution. Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist principles that creationist organizations produce.[52][53] The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1370[54]) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.[55]

Many creationists act as evangelists and their organizations are registered as tax-free religious organizations.[57] Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of true Christians, and evolution is only associated with atheism.[58][59]

Michael Shermer argued in Scientific American in October 2006 that evolution supports concepts like family values, avoiding lies, fidelity, moral codes and the rule of law. Shermer also suggests that evolution gives more support to the notion of an omnipotent creator, rather than a tinkerer with limitations based on a human model.[67]

A fundamental part of `Abdul-Bahá's teachings on evolution is the belief that all life came from the same origin: "the origin of all material life is one..."[68] He states that from this sole origin, the complete diversity of life was generated: "Consider the world of created beings, how varied and diverse they are in species, yet with one sole origin"[69] He explains that a slow, gradual process led to the development of complex entities:

"[T]he growth and development of all beings is gradual; this is the universal divine organization and the natural system. The seed does not at once become a tree; the embryo does not at once become a man; the mineral does not suddenly become a stone. No, they grow and develop gradually and attain the limit of perfection"[70]

Evolutionary theory is thought by many theologians to be compatible with Catholic dogma, according to some interpretations of the Church's documents. On the 12 August 1950, the Catholic Church accepted that the theory of evolution was a valid scientific inquiry, stated by Pope Pius XII in the encyclical Humani generis saying "research and discussions… take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution". In the same encyclical the Magisterium holds that a Catholic can believe in the creation account found in sacred scripture. However, the encyclical rejects what it described as "fictitious tenets of evolution", such as "Some imprudently and indiscreetly hold that evolution, which has not been fully proved even in the domain of natural sciences, explains the origin of all this, and audaciously support the monistic and pantheistic opinion that the world is in continual evolution.".[71]

In 1996 Pope John Paul II gave a message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences in which he said "Today, almost half a century after publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis."[72]

Between 2000 and 2002 the International Theological Commission found that "Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."[73] This statement was published by the Vatican on July 2004 by the authority of Cardinal Ratzinger (who became Pope Benedict XVI) who was the president of the Commission at the time.

The Magisterium has not yet made an authoritative statement on intelligent design, and has permitted arguments on both sides of the issue. In 2005, Cardinal Christoph Schönborn of Vienna appeared to endorse intelligent design when he denounced philosophically materialist interpretations of evolution.[74] In an op-ed in the New York Times he said "Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not."[75] This common line of reasoning among theologians is flawed, as evolution by natural selection is not random at all; only mutations occur in a stochastic manner, while natural selection establishes genes which aid survival in a particular environment.

Hindus believe in the concept of evolution of life on Earth.[79] The concepts of Dashavatara—different incarnations of God starting from simple organisms and progressively becoming complex beings—and Day and Night of Brahma are generally cited as instances of Hindu acceptance of evolution.[citation needed]

A common complaint of creationists is that evolution is of no value, has never been used for anything, and will never be of any use. According to many creationists, nothing would be lost by getting rid of evolution, and science and industry might even benefit.[86][87][88]

In fact, evolution is being put to practical use in industry and widely used on a daily basis by researchers in medicine, biochemistry, molecular biology, and genetics to both formulate hypotheses about biological systems for the purposes of experimental design, as well as to rationalise observed data and prepare applications.[55][89][90][91] As of January 2016 there are 428,827 scientific papers in PubMed that mention 'evolution'.[92] Pharmaceutical companies utilize biological evolution in their development of new products, and also use these medicines to combat evolving bacteria and viruses.[90]

Because of the perceived value of evolution in applications, there have been some expressions of support for evolution on the part of corporations. In Kansas, there has been some widespread concern in the corporate and academic communities that a move to weaken the teaching of evolution in schools will hurt the state's ability to recruit the best talent, particularly in the biotech industry.[93] Paul Hanle of the Biotechnology Institute warned that the United States risks falling behind in the biotechnology race with other nations if it does not do a better job of teaching evolution.[94] James McCarter of Divergence Incorporated stated that the work of 2001 Nobel Prize winner Leland Hartwell relied heavily on the use of evolutionary knowledge and predictions, both of which have significant implications for the treatment of cancers. Furthermore, McCarter concluded that 47 of the last 50 Nobel Prizes in medicine or physiology depended on an understanding of evolutionary theory (according to McCarter's unspecified personal criteria).[95]

There does not appear to be significant correlation between believing in evolution and understanding evolutionary science.[110][111] In some countries, creationist beliefs (or a lack of support for evolutionary theory) are relatively widespread, even garnering a majority of public opinion. A study published in Science compared attitudes about evolution in the United States, 32 European countries (including Turkey) and Japan. The only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey (25%). Public acceptance of evolution was most widespread (at over 80% of the population) in Iceland, Denmark and Sweden.[112]

In a 2010 poll, 59% of respondents said they believe in theistic evolution, or evolution guided by God. A further 8% believe in evolution without divine intervention, while 25% were creationists. Support for creationism was stronger among the poor and the least educated.[113] According to a 2014 poll produced by the Pew Research Center, 66% of Brazilians agree that humans evolved over time and 29% think they have always existed in the present form.[114]

Among those who had heard of Charles Darwin and knew something about the theory of evolution, 77% of people in India agree that enough scientific evidence exists to support Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution.[116][117] Also, 85% of God believing Indians who know about evolution agree that life on earth evolved over time as a result of natural selection.[116]

In a survey carried among 10 major nations, the highest proportion that agreed that evolutionary theories alone should be taught in schools was in India, at 49%.[118]

According to a 2008 Norstat poll for NRK, 59% of the Norwegian population fully accept evolution, 24% somewhat agree with the theory, 4% somewhat disagree with the theory while 8% do not accept evolution. 4% did not know.[119]

A 2006 UK poll on the "origin and development of life" asked participants to choose between three different explanations for the origin of life: 22% chose (Young Earth) creationism, 17% opted for intelligent design ("certain features of living things are best explained by the intervention of a supernatural being, e.g. God"), 48% selected evolution theory (with a divine role explicitly excluded) and the rest did not know.[120][121]

The US has one of the highest levels of public belief in biblical or other religious accounts of the origins of life on earth among industrialized countries.[124]

According to a 2007 Gallup poll,[125] about 43% of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so." This is only slightly less than the 46% reported in a 2006 Gallup poll.[126] Only 14% believed that "human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process", despite 49% of respondents indicating they believed in evolution.[125] Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism.[126] A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[127]

A 2005 Pew Research Center poll found that 70% of evangelical Christians believed that living organisms have not changed since their creation, but only 31% of Catholics and 32% of mainline Protestants shared this opinion. A 2005 Harris Poll[130] estimated that 63% of liberals and 37% of conservatives agreed that humans and other primates have a common ancestry.[67]

A 2009 poll showed that almost a quarter of Australians believe "the biblical account of human origins" over the Darwinian account. 42 percent of Australians believe in a "wholly scientific" explanation for the origins of life, while 32 percent believe in an evolutionary process "guided by God".[131]

A 2010 survey conducted by Auspoll and the Australian Academy of Science found that 79% of Australians believe in evolution (71% believe it is currently occurring, 8% believe in evolution but do not think it is currently occurring), 11% were not sure and 10% stated they do not believe in evolution.[132]

The level of support for evolution in different communities has varied with time. Darwin's theory had convinced almost every naturalist within 20 years of its publication in 1858, and was making serious inroads with the public and the more liberal clergy. It had reached such extremes, that by 1880, one American religious weekly publication estimated that "perhaps a quarter, perhaps a half of the educated ministers in our leading Evangelical denominations" felt "that the story of the creation and fall of man, told in Genesis, is no more the record of actual occurrences than is the parable of the Prodigal Son."[133]

By the late 19th century, many of the most conservative Christians accepted an ancient earth, and life on earth before Eden. Victorian Era Creationists were more akin to people who subscribe to theistic evolution today. Even fervent anti-evolutionist Scopes Trial prosecutor William Jennings Bryan interpreted the "days" of Genesis as ages of the earth, and acknowledged that biochemical evolution took place, drawing the line only at the story of Adam and Eve's creation. Prominent pre-World War II creationist Harry Rimmer allowed an Old Earth by slipping millions of years into putative gaps in the Genesis account, and claimed that the Noachian Flood was only a local phenomenon.[133]

In a 1991 Gallup poll, 47% of the US population, and 25% of college graduates agreed with the statement, "God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."

Fourteen years later, in 2005, Gallup found that 53% of Americans expressed the belief that "God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it." About 2/3 (65.5%) of those surveyed thought that creationism was definitely or probably true. In 2005 a Newsweek poll discovered that 80 percent of the American public thought that "God created the universe." and the Pew Research Center reported that "nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools." Ronald Numbers commented on that with "Most surprising of all was the discovery that large numbers of high-school biology teachers — from 30% in Illinois and 38% in Ohio to a whopping 69% in Kentucky — supported the teaching of creationism."[133]

The National Center for Science Education reports that from 1985 to 2005, the number of Americans unsure about evolution increased from 7% to 21%, while the number rejecting evolution declined from 48% to 39%.[112][134] Jon Miller of Michigan State University has found in his polls that the number of Americans who accept evolution has declined from 45% to 40% from 1985 to 2005.[135]

In light of these somewhat contradictory results, it is difficult to know for sure what is happening to public opinion on evolution in the US. It does not appear that either side is making unequivocal progress. It does appear that uncertainty about the issue is increasing, however.

Anecdotal evidence is that creationism is becoming more of an issue in the UK as well. One report in 2006 was that UK students are increasingly arriving ill-prepared to participate in medical studies or other advanced education.[136]

The level of support for creationism among relevant scientists is minimal. Only 700 out of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists gave credence to creationism in 1987,[24] representing about 0.146% of relevant scientists. In 2007 the Discovery Institute reported that about 600 scientists signed their A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list, up from 100 in 2001.[137] The actual statement of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism is a relatively mild one that expresses skepticism about the absoluteness of 'Darwinism' (and is in line with the falsifiability required of scientific theories) to explain all features of life, and does not in any way represent an absolute denial or rejection of evolution.[138] By contrast, a tongue-in-cheek response known as Project Steve, a list of scientists named Steve who agree that evolution is "a vital, well-supported, unifying principle of the biological sciences," has 1,382 signatories as of November 24, 2015[update].[139] People named Steve make up approximately 1% of the total U.S. population.

The United States National Science Foundation statistics on US yearly science graduates demonstrate that from 1987 to 2001, the number of biological science graduates increased by 59% while the number of geological science graduates decreased by 20.5%. However, the number of geology graduates in 2001 was only 5.4% of the number of graduates in the biological sciences, while it was 10.7% of the number of biological science graduates in 1987.[140] The Science Resources Statistics Division of the National Science Foundation estimated that in 1999, there were 955,300 biological scientists in the US (about 1/3 of who hold graduate degrees). There were also 152,800 earth scientists in the US as well.[141]

A large fraction of the Darwin Dissenters have specialties unrelated to research on evolution; of the dissenters, three-quarters are not biologists.[142] As of 2006, the dissenter list was expanded to include non-US scientists.[143] Despite the increase in absolute number of scientists willing to sign the dissent form, and an increase in public support, proportionately the figures indicates the support from scientists for creationism and intelligent design is steadily decreasing.[citation needed]

Some researchers are attempting to understand the factors that affect people's acceptance of evolution. Studies have yielded inconsistent results, explains associate professor of education at Ohio State University, David Haury. He recently performed a study that found people are likely to reject evolution if they have feelings of uncertainty, regardless of how well they understand evolutionary theory. Haury believes that teachers need to show students that their intuitive feelings may be misleading (for example, using the Wason selection task), and thus to exercise caution when relying on them as they judge the rational merits of ideas.[144][145]

^Numbers, Ronald L. (2009). "Myth 24: That Creationism is a Uniquely American Phenomenon". Galileo goes to jail and other myths about science and religion. Cambridge and London: Harward University Press. p. 217. ISBN978-0-674-03327-6. Retrieved 2011-09-03. Antievolutionists in Australia celebrated in August 2005, when the minister of education, a Christian physician named Brendan Nelson, came out in favor of exposing students both to evollution and ID...

^ abAs reported by Newsweek: "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science, the general theory that complex life forms did not evolve but appeared 'abruptly'."Martz & McDaniel 1987, p. 23

^National Science Teachers Association, a professional association of 55,000 science teachers and administrators in a 2005 press release: "We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science.…It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom." National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush National Science Teachers Association Press Release August 3, 2005

^"Biologists aren’t alarmed by intelligent design’s arrival in Dover and elsewhere because they have all sworn allegiance to atheistic materialism; they’re alarmed because intelligent design is junk science." H. Allen Orr. Annals of Science. New Yorker May 2005.Devolution—Why intelligent design isn't. Also, Robert T. Pennock Tower of Babel: The Evidence Against the New Creationism.

^The Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity Nobel Laureates Initiative. Intelligent design cannot be tested as a scientific theory "because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."Nobel Laureates Initiative (PDF file)

^Princeton theologian Charles Hodge, in his book Systematic Theology, Charles Hodge, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1975, vol. 2, p. 15, argues that "First, it shocks the common sense of unsophisticated men to be told that the whale and the humming-bird, man and the mosquito, are derived from the same source... the system is thoroughly atheistic, and therefore cannot possibly stand."

^Evolution and Christianity are opposites, p. 36 of Evolution and Society, Volume 2 of Scientific Facts Against Evolution-Origin of the Universe: 3 Volume Encyclopedia states, of evolution and Christianity, "there can be no reconciliation between the two. One view stands for fighting, warfare against the supposed weaker ones, and atheism; the other is for peace, self-sacrifice for the good of others, and belief and trust in the Creator God...Even evolutionists and atheists have declared that their creeds are totally different than those of Christianity." Also in the article Evolution and the churches on pages 39-41 of the same volume, "In spite of clear-cut statements by evolutionists that "evolution IS atheism," many denominations today accept one form or another of evolutionary theory."

^Matsumura 1998, p. 9 notes that, "Table 1 demonstrates that Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education! Indeed, many of the statements in Voices insist quite strongly that evolution must be included in science education and "creation science" must be excluded. Even if we subtract the Southern Baptist Convention, which has changed its view of evolution since McLean v Arkansas and might take a different position now, the percentage those in denominations supporting evolution is still a substantial 77%. Furthermore, many other Christian and non-Christian denominations, including the United Church of Christ and the National Sikh Center, have shown some degree of support for evolution education (as defined by inclusion in 'Voices' or the "Joint Statement")." Matsumura produced her table from a June, 1998 article titled Believers: Dynamic Dozen put out by Religion News Services which in turn cites the 1998 Yearbook of American and Canadian Churches. Matsurmura's calculations include the SBC based on a brief they filed in McLean v. Arkansas, where the SBC took a position it has since changed, according to Matsurmura. See also NCSE 2002.